STRATFOR - The 30-Year War in Afghanistan

By George Friedman
The Afghan War is the longest war in U.S. history. It began in 1980 and continues to rage. It began under Democrats but has been fought under both Republican and Democratic administrations, making it truly a bipartisan war. The conflict is an odd obsession of U.S. foreign policy, one that never goes away and never seems to end. As the resignation of Gen. Stanley McChrystalreminds us, the Afghan War is now in its fourth phase.

The Afghan War’s First Three Phases

The first phase of the Afghan War began with the Soviet invasion in December 1979, when the United States, along with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, organized and sustained Afghan resistance to the Soviets. This resistance was built around mujahideen, fighters motivated by Islam. Washington’s purpose had little to do with Afghanistan and everything to do with U.S.-Soviet competition. The United States wanted to block the Soviets from using Afghanistan as a base for further expansion and wanted to bog the Soviets down in a debilitating guerrilla war. The United States did not so much fight the war as facilitate it. The strategy worked. The Soviets were blocked and bogged down. This phase lasted until 1989, when Soviet troops were withdrawn.
The second phase lasted from 1989 until 2001. The forces the United States and its allies had trained and armed now fought each other in complex coalitions for control of Afghanistan. Though the United States did not take part in this war directly, it did not lose all interest in Afghanistan. Rather, it was prepared to exert its influence through allies, particularly Pakistan. Most important, it was prepared to accept that the Islamic fighters it had organized against the Soviets would govern Afghanistan. There were many factions, but with Pakistani support, a coalition called the Taliban took power in 1996. The Taliban in turn provided sanctuary for a group of international jihadists called al Qaeda, and this led to increased tensions with the Taliban following jihadist attacks on U.S. facilities abroad by al Qaeda.
The third phase began on Sept. 11, 2001, when al Qaeda launched attacks on the mainland United States. Given al Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan, the United States launched operations designed to destroy or disrupt al Qaeda and dislodge the Taliban. The United States commenced operations barely 30 days after Sept. 11, which was not enough time to mount an invasion using U.S. troops as the primary instrument. Rather, the United States made arrangements with factions that were opposed to the Taliban (and defeated in the Afghan civil war). This included organizations such as the Northern Alliance, which had remained close to the Russians; Shiite groups in the west that were close to the Iranians and India; and other groups or subgroups in other regions. These groups supported the United States out of hostility to the Taliban and/or due to substantial bribes paid by the United States.
The overwhelming majority of ground forces opposing the Taliban in 2001 were Afghan. The United States did, however, insert special operations forces teams to work with these groups and to identify targets for U.S. airpower, the primary American contribution to the war. The use of U.S. B-52s against Taliban forces massed around cities in the north caused the Taliban to abandon any thought of resisting the Northern Alliance and others, even though the Taliban had defeated them in the civil war.
Unable to hold fixed positions against airstrikes, the Taliban withdrew from the cities and dispersed. The Taliban were not defeated, however; they merely declined to fight on U.S. terms. Instead, they redefined the war, preserving their forces and regrouping. The Taliban understood that the cities were not the key to Afghanistan. Instead, the countryside would ultimately provide control of the cities. From the Taliban point of view, the battle would be waged in the countryside, while the cities increasingly would be isolated.
The United States simply did not have sufficient force to identify, engage and destroy the Taliban as a whole. The United States did succeed in damaging and dislodging al Qaeda, with the jihadist group’s command cell becoming isolated in northwestern Pakistan. But as with the Taliban, the United States did not defeat al Qaeda because the United States lacked significant forces on the ground. Even so, al Qaeda prime, the original command cell, was no longer in a position to mount 9/11-style attacks.
During the Bush administration, U.S. goals for Afghanistan were modest. First, the Americans intended to keep al Qaeda bottled up and to impose as much damage as possible on the group. Second, they intended to establish an Afghan government, regardless of how ineffective it might be, to serve as a symbolic core. Third, they planned very limited operations against the Taliban, which had regrouped and increasingly controlled the countryside. The Bush administration was basically in a holding operation in Afghanistan. It accepted that U.S. forces were neither going to be able to impose a political solution on Afghanistan nor create a coalition large enough control the country. U.S. strategy was extremely modest under Bush: to harass al Qaeda from bases in Afghanistan, maintain control of cities and logistics routes, and accept the limits of U.S. interests and power.
The three phases of American involvement in Afghanistan had a common point: All three were heavily dependent on non-U.S. forces to do the heavy lifting. In the first phase, the mujahideen performed this task. In the second phase, the United States relied on Pakistan to manage Afghanistan’s civil war. In the third phase, especially in the beginning, the United States depended on Afghan forces to fight the Taliban. Later, when greater numbers of American and allied forces arrived, the United States had limited objectives beyond preserving the Afghan government and engaging al Qaeda wherever it might be found (and in any event, by 2003, Iraq had taken priority over Afghanistan). In no case did the Americans use their main force to achieve their goals.

The Fourth Phase of the Afghan War

The fourth phase of the war began in 2009, when U.S. President Barack Obama decided to pursue a more aggressive strategy in Afghanistan. Though the Bush administration had toyed with this idea, it was Obama who implemented it fully. During the 2008 election campaign, Obama asserted that he would pay greater attention to Afghanistan. The Obama administration began with the premise that while the Iraq War was a mistake, the Afghan War had to be prosecuted. It reasoned that unlike Iraq, which had a tenuous connection to al Qaeda at best, Afghanistan was the group’s original base. He argued that Afghanistan therefore should be the focus of U.S. military operations. In doing so, he shifted a strategy that had been in place for 30 years by making U.S. forces the main combatants in the war.
Though Obama’s goals were not altogether clear, they might be stated as follows:

1. Deny al Qaeda a base in Afghanistan.
2. Create an exit strategy from Afghanistan similar to the one in Iraq by creating the conditions for negotiating with the Taliban; make denying al Qaeda a base a condition for the resulting ruling coalition.
3. Begin withdrawal by 2011.

To do this, there would be three steps:

1. Increase the number and aggressiveness of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
2. Create Afghan security forces under the current government to take over from the Americans.
3. Increase pressure on the Taliban by driving a wedge between them and the population and creating intra-insurgent rifts via effective counterinsurgency tactics.

In analyzing this strategy, there is an obvious issue: While al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan in 2001, Afghanistan is no longer its primary base of operations. The group has shifted to Pakistan,Yemen, Somalia and other countries. As al Qaeda is thus not dependent on any one country for its operational base, denying it bases in Afghanistan does not address the reality of its dispersion. Securing Afghanistan, in other words, is no longer the solution to al Qaeda.
Obviously, Obama’s planners fully understood this. Therefore, sanctuary denial for al Qaeda had to be, at best, a secondary strategic goal. The primary strategic goal was to create an exit strategy for the United States based on a negotiated settlement with the Taliban and a resulting coalition government. The al Qaeda issue depended on this settlement, but could never be guaranteed. In fact, neither the long-term survival of a coalition government nor the Taliban policing al Qaeda could be guaranteed.
The exit of U.S. forces represents a bid to reinstate the American strategy of the past 30 years, namely, having Afghan forces reassume the primary burden of fighting. The creation of an Afghan military is not the key to this strategy. Afghans fight for their clans and ethnic groups. The United States is trying to invent a national army where no nation exists, a task that assumes the primary loyalty of Afghans will shift from their clans to a national government, an unlikely proposition.

The Real U.S. Strategy

Rather than trying to strengthen the Karzai government, the real strategy is to return to the historical principles of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan: alliance with indigenous forces. These indigenous forces would pursue strategies in the American interest for their own reasons, or because they are paid, and would be strong enough to stand up to the Taliban in a coalition. As CIA Director Leon Panetta put it this weekend, however, this is proving harder to do than expected.
The American strategy is, therefore, to maintain a sufficient force to shape the political evolution on the ground, and to use that force to motivate and intimidate while also using economic incentives to draw together a coalition in the countryside. Operations like those in Helmand province — where even Washington acknowledges that progress has been elusive and slower than anticipated — clearly are designed to try to draw regional forces into regional coalitions that eventually can enter a coalition with the Taliban without immediately being overwhelmed. If this strategy proceeds, the Taliban in theory will be spurred to negotiate out of concern that this process eventually could leave it marginalized.
There is an anomaly in this strategy, however. Where the United States previously had devolved operational responsibility to allied groups, or simply hunkered down, this strategy tries to return to devolved responsibilities by first surging U.S. operations. The fourth phase actually increases U.S. operational responsibility in order to reduce it.
From the grand strategic point of view, the United States needs to withdraw from Afghanistan, a landlocked country where U.S. forces are dependent on tortuous supply lines. WhateverAfghanistan’s vast mineral riches, mining them in the midst of war is not going to happen. More important, the United States is overcommitted in the region and lacks a strategic reserve of ground forces. Afghanistan ultimately is not strategically essential, and this is why the United States has not historically used its own forces there.
Obama’s attempt to return to that track after first increasing U.S. forces to set the stage for the political settlement that will allow a U.S. withdrawal is hampered by the need to begin terminating the operation by 2011 (although there is no fixed termination date). It will be difficult to draw coalition partners into local structures when the foundation — U.S. protection — is withdrawing. Strengthening local forces by 2011 will be difficult. Moreover, the Taliban’s motivation to enter into talks is limited by the early withdrawal. At the same time, with no ground combat strategic reserve, the United States is vulnerable elsewhere in the world, and the longer the Afghan drawdown takes, the more vulnerable it becomes (hence the 2011 deadline in Obama’s war plan).
In sum, this is the quandary inherent in the strategy: It is necessary to withdraw as early as possible, but early withdrawal undermines both coalition building and negotiations. The recruitment and use of indigenous Afghan forces must move extremely rapidly to hit the deadline (though officially on track quantitatively, there are serious questions about qualitative measures) — hence, the aggressive operations that have been mounted over recent months. But the correlation of forces is such that the United States probably will not be able to impose an acceptable political reality in the time frame available. Thus, Afghan President Hamid Karzai is said to be opening channels directly to the Taliban, while the Pakistanis are increasing their presence. Where a vacuum is created, regardless of how much activity there is, someone will fill it.
Therefore, the problem is to define how important Afghanistan is to American global strategy, bearing in mind that the forces absorbed in Iraq and Afghanistan have left the United States vulnerable elsewhere in the world. The current strategy defines the Islamic world as the focus of all U.S. military attention. But the world has rarely been so considerate as to wait until the United States is finished with one war before starting another. Though unknowns remain unknowable, a principle of warfare is to never commit all of your reserves in a battle — one should always maintain a reserve for the unexpected. Strategically, it is imperative that the United States begin to free up forces and re-establish its ground reserves.
Given the time frame the Obama administration’s grand strategy imposes, and given the capabilities of the Taliban, it is difficult to see how it will all work out. But the ultimate question is about the American obsession with Afghanistan. For 30 years, the United States has been involved in a country that is virtually inaccessible for the United States. Washington has allied itself with radical Islamists, fought against radical Islamists or tried to negotiate with radical Islamists. What the United States has never tried to do is impose a political solution through the direct application of American force. This is a new and radically different phase of America’s Afghan obsession. The questions are whether it will work and whether it is even worth it.

This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR

Kish Collections: So, why is the United States fighting in Afghanistan?

Foundations Gone Wild - Skousen's Third Major Dimension

W. Cleon Skousen published a book in 1970 entitled "The Naked Capitalist". In that book, page 108, he spoke of -

"...about 100 men from the top inner circle representing their four major dimensions of power: (1) the international banking dynasties, (2) their corporations involved in vast, international enterprises, (3) the American tax-exempt foundations, and (4) the establishment representatives who have gained high offices in government, especially the United States government."

The following article, posted today on American Thinker, does well to describe some of the current activities of the third major dimension- American Thinker: Foundations Gone Wild.

By the way, on page 108 of his book, Skousen was describing the makeup of the Bilderberg Group as it existed in 1970.

Russian warship makes rare San Francisco appearance

Tuesday, June 22, 2010- SFGate Reports: Russian Missile Cruiser Varyag, a sleek gray vessel that is the flagship of Russia's Pacific fleet (is docked) off the coast of San Francisco.

The Russian military is known to be mindful of its history-

The ship's visit commemorates a nearly forgotten bit of Russian-American history. Czar Alexander II sent a fleet to San Francisco and New York in 1863 during the American Civil War to show support for the union... It was a difficult time for the United States - the British were considering recognizing the Confederacy, the French were about to send an army to Mexico, and the Confederate Navy had ideas about the Pacific.

Yesterday's difficulties tend to parallel today's challenges-
The British and French are recognizing (and some would say being overrun by) Islamism, Mexico is spiraling out of control, and China has ideas about the Pacific.

It is the German philosopher Karl Marx (the grandfather of Russian communism), who said: "Hegel remarks somewhere that history tends to repeat itself. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."

Of no disappointment to Marx, we are reminded of Little Red Riding Hood as Russian Rear Adm. Vladimir Kastonov admires our "very beautiful coast and beautiful city" from the bow of his powerful warship, "including menacing missile tubes that house 16 cruise missiles able to hit enemy warships (or civilian targets) more than 3,400 miles away". Isn't it interesting that the United States is roughly 3,400 miles coast to coast at it's widest point? As the story goes-

Little Red Riding Hood was enjoying the warm summer day so much, that she didn't notice a dark shadow approaching out of the forest behind her... "But Vladimir! What big teeth you have,"

Sources: Russian warship makes rare S.F. appearance, A Russian Silicon Valley? Maybe, Little Red Riding Hood Story, TFP - The Final Phase Forum

So, why is the United States fighting in Afghanistan?

We are fighting in Afghanistan because it is the path most beneficial to our enemy.

For burden of proof, we need look no further than Iran.  The communists are known to be the primary suppliers of military arms and training to Iran.  The U.S. military is currently building up forces against Iran. U.S. hawks are beating the drum to attack.  Today’s scenario is history repeated.

Learn to be aware of the real enemy - The Global Communist - The Tzucom.

Do the Tzucoms want Iran to have a nuclear arsenal? – No. Are the Tzucoms happy to sell Iran items to build a nuclear arsenal? – Yes. Will they be the first to know when Iran is on the brink of creating a successful warhead actually capable of threatening their interests? – Absolutely. When the critical point is reached and military action is necessary, will China or Russia send their troops into Iran? No. - They will send ours.

Then we will ask- “Why is the United States fighting in Iran?”

Read- The Unconsidered Enemy
Read- Friend or Foe
Ask yourself- Why aren't the Chinese helping us in Afghanistan?

I can assure you, that even as wild as this notion appears, it remains the most logical conclusion.

Michael Yon’s criticism of McChrystal deemed prophetic

Long before Rolling Stone published the story, war correspondent Michael Yon had also levied criticism at McChrystal. Yon came under fire from some milbloggers for his dispatches, and at least one military blog came close to character assassination because of what Yon wrote about McChrystal.

The US Report - The US Report - Michael Yon’s criticism of McChrystal deemed prophetic

The Story of Your Enslavement

Documented Disaster: Day 60, NEWS FLASH - The oil is still gushing.

A Soldier Died Today

(Author Anonymous)

He was getting old and paunchy and his hair was falling fast.
And he sat around the VFW telling stories of the past.
Of a war that he had fought in and the deeds he had done,
In his exploits with his buddies:, they were heroes, everyone.
And 'tho sometimes to his neighbors, his tales became a joke,
All his buddies listened, for they knew wherof he spoke.
But, we'll hear his tales no longer, for old Bob has passed away
And the world's a little poorer, for a soldier died today.

No, he won't be mourned by many, just his children and his wife,
For he lived an ordinary very quiet sort of life.
He held a job and raised a family, quietly going on his way,
And the world won't note his passing:, 'tho a soldier died today.
When politicians leave the earth, their bodies lay in state.
While thousands note their passing and proclaim they were great,
Papers tell of their life stories from the time they were young.
But, the passing of a soldier goes unnoticed, and unsung.

Is the greatest contribution to the welfare of our land
Some jerk who breaks his promise and cons his fellow man?
Or the ordinary fellow who in times of war and strife
Goes off to serve his country and offers up his life?
The politicians stipend and the style in which he lives
Are sometimes disproportinate to the service he gives,
While the ordinary soldier, who offered up his all,
Is paid off with a medal, and perhaps a pension small.

It's so easy to forget them, for it was so long ago
That our Bobs, Jims, and Johnnys went to battle, but we know
It was not the politicians, with the compromise and ploys
Who won for us the freedom that our country now enjoys.
Should you find yourself in danger with your enemies at hand,
Would you really want some cop-out with his ever waffling stand?
Or would you want a soldier who has sworn to defend
His home, his kin, and country, and would fight until the end?

He was just a common soldier and his ranks are growing thin
But his presence should remind us, we may need his like again.
For when countries are in conflict, then we find the soldier's part
Is to clean up all the troubles that the politicians start.
If we cannot do him honor while he's here to hear -- the praises,
Then at least let's give him homage at the ending of his days.
Perhaps just a simple headline in the paper that might say,
"Our Country is in Mourning, For a Soldier Died Today."

-- Contributed by Rev. H. Scot Thompson,
Chaplain, Mt. Vernon, IL VFW Post 9233

Michael Yon's message from Thailand

Michael Yon writes-

Today, the United States and allies continue to swat mosquitoes in Afghanistan.

Very important to do everything possible to avert war in Thailand. When I look at Thailand through the eye of an enemy of Thailand, I see an excellent battlefield that suits me, an enemy commander, not the government. Plenty of jungle and mountains for cover. Water, food, and other resources are plentiful and cannot be cut off. All borders are porous. Surrounded by countries with weak governments. Bountiful access to the sea. Most importantly, a wide swath of the population is susceptible to emotion-based messages and they have profound grievances. They can be organized in many ways.

As an enemy commander, very early in the fight I would strike the economy...

After such a war starts, the military is not in charge. They become just one of many actors. The United States has the most powerful military the world has ever witnessed, and yet Afghans -- nearly all of whom have never been in the military -- are slowly but surely winning that war.

It cannot be stated clearly enough: The Thai government still has great influence and power. Must use that influence and power to avert war, not fight it. If a war truly starts, many things that are true now will become history.

We should know that Michael's realities are not isolated to Thailand.

The Soul and the Science

A poem by J.N. Kish, inspired by the story and music of Tony Cicoria as featured on the NOVA episode Musical Minds.

The soul is the spirit
Interconnected, Feeling
White whimsical
Streaking, Dancing
Alive
Uplifting, Fulfilling
Strength and belonging
So far from the pains of the body
Away from this world
Near and far, intertwined, Yet-
Beyond the trappings of the flesh
Impulsive, yet most serious in purpose
These beings, which inhabit
These beings, mysterious
These beings- Animators of bones
Drivers of awakening before the dawn
To rise and create
Oh, the pleasure to create
To convert, to channel
These energies from beyond
Into the hands of the flesh
A production of purpose
The pleasure to know, to explain
This process of creation
The spirit of production
But the science
Forever seeks and falls short
A continuous discounting
Alone, isolated, separated, Afraid
Of hidden energies, known far and wide
The soul, animus, life, The essence
Why
Fear, ego, sin
Yes
It is that which drives science
In its failure to believe
In its failure to understand
Reality is seeing
The spirit is feeling
A being
Must open its mind to learn
To listen, to observe, to report
To discover, The truth
Of those compelled to speak from the heart